SOS e - Clarion Of Dalit

IT IS A FORUM TOWARDS PROTECTING THE CIVIL , HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE OPPRESSED - DALITS , MINORITIES & TRIBALS.The Criminal - Police - Politician - Judge - Criminals Nexus is trying to silence me in many ways. If anything untoward happens to me or to my dependents CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA together with jurisdictional police & District Magistrate will be responsible for it.
Secure Mail : Naag@torbox3uiot6wchz.onion

Sunday, May 29, 2016

Police are also Human Beings

S.O.Se - ClarionOf Dalit - WeeklyNewspaperOn Web

Working For The Rights & Survival Of TheOppressed

Editor: NAGARAJA.M.R…VOL.10 issue.23…… .08/06/2016

Editorial : Police Constables = Human Beings

An Appeal to National Human rights Commission and Supreme Court of India

Police Constables are also Human Beings , one among us who has chosen the job of policing for livelihood. Since decades their human rights , constitutional rights are violated , their voices seeking justice are suppressed by superior police officers. The Police Constables who tried to organize them , who asked for justice were dismissed from police service.

It has a boomerang effect on vulnerable sections of society. The police constables who work under extreme psychological stress , who’s very own rights are violated are prone to committing rights violations of the weaker people. Till we as a society , government , Superior Police Officers start respecting the human rights of Police constables , we can not expect police constables to respect human rights of others. It is simple Give Respect & Take Respect.

Hereby , We appeal to Honourable National Human Rights Commission of India and Honourable Supreme Court of India , to register following PILs and to protect the Human Rights of both Police Constables and the Public alike.

Jai Hind. Vande Mataram.

Your’s sincerely ,

Nagaraja.M.R.

Karnataka: 50000 cops apply for ‘harassment leave’; may go on strike

The police personnel are protesting against harassment by senior officers in the name of discipline.

Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha is leading the movement, which will be a major embarrassment to the state government if it is successful. (Representational Image)

BENGALURU: In a first of its kind in the state, police personnel are planning to go on mass leave on June 4, in protest against the harassment by senior officers in the name of discipline, meagre salary, no proper leaves and other issues faced on the professional front.

It has been learned that more than 50,000 policemen across the state have already applied for ‘Harassment Leave’ on June 4. However, police heads of all districts have issued orders to all police station heads directing them not to grant leave to any staff on that day.

Akhila Karnataka Police Maha Sangha is leading the movement, which will be a major embarrassment to the state government if it is successful. V. Shashidhar, the Founder President of the Organisation, told Deccan Chronicle that the movement gained momentum after a few policemen approached him with the plan of protesting against the system.

“They told me that all the policemen should go on leave on the same day to pass a strong message to the government and they requested me to lead the movement, as there is no proper forum to fight for the rights of policemen. Then I started working towards it and it gained support from thousands of policemen and also various other organisations,” Shashidhar said.

“There are around 85,000 policemen in the state. In this, 65,000 staff is constabulary, which is the most harassed section. Forget decent salary, they are not even able to spend time with their families. They don’t get leaves even during emergency situations. Even for small issues, they have to face suspensions in the name of ‘disciplinary action’. Their working condition is pathetic as they have to work more than 15 hours at a stretch without basic amenities. This is nothing but gross violation of human rights. Despite repeated requests for the last 25-30 years the governments have not done anything to sort out the issues and even courts did not rule in favour of policemen. Thus, they have reached threshold and are ready to give a clear message to the government this time,” he said.

As it is obvious that the higher ups won’t grant leave on June 4, the policemen have reportedly decided to not turn up for work on that day. “However, they won’t come on streets to protest as they belong to disciplinary force. Instead, we are requesting their family members to protest on behalf of them. Also, various organisations like Karnataka Rakshana Vedike have supported our cause and will join hands with us,” Shashidhar added.

PIL – Treat Police Constables Humanely

An Appeal to National Human Rights Commission of India and Supreme Court of India

Police constables are appointed , trained for the very specific purpose of maintaining law , order and detecting crimes.

When police constables are treated humanely by superiors and others , they will reciprocate the same.

Police constables are always under the threat of criminals , anti nationals , mafia. But they are not paid any compensation by government when murdered by criminals , on the lines of soldiers becoming martyr during war.

Government has enacted laws enforcing equal pay for equal work , 1 earned leave for 20 working days , maximum of 8 working hours , one paid weekly off after 48 working hours or 6 days , for all private & public sector employees. In case of urgency over time work can be allotted to worker with his willingness ( not forced ) at the rate of double wages. For violation of these laws , labor department officials will prosecute guilty company executives.

Since decades , police constables are not paid equal wages in comparison to their counterparts in other states and with people of their own rank like teachers , electric line mans , etc in our state itself. Everyday they are forced to work beyond 8 hours without any additional wages. Leaves are not sanctioned. They are addressed by first name in vulgar language by superior officers and forced to do menial jobs by superior officers which are not part of police manual or service rules. Those who refuse to do it are dismissed by superior officers citing indiscipline. Day in day out every second police constables are treated inhumanely by superior officers. POLICE CONSTABLES HUMAN RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED by superior officers since decades. These police constables work under extreme psychological stress and some police constables vent out their anger on innocents , suspects in lock up by using 3rd degree torture methods. Some other constables have fired at their superior officers and some have gone to the extreme of committing suicide.

In the name of discipline , job security , the doors to legal redress of grievances are shut for police constables.

Till violation of Human Rights of Police Constables are not stopped , you can not stop human rights violations by police , 3rd degree torture of innocents , lock up deaths by police.

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties , to respect the Human Rights , Constitutional Rights of police constables.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the chief secretaries of all stae governments , the concerned public servants in the present case , to perform their duties.b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

e. To immediately order respective state governments to pay over time pay to all police constables with back wages , over time wages since their appointment till date.

f. To immediately order state governments to start process of police constables recruitment.

g. To give staggered weekly off to all police constables without fail.

h. To order state governments to strictly pay equal wages for equal work to all police constables in comparison to their counter parts in other states and state government employees of their same rank in their own states.

i. To order state governments to pay compensation to police constables who die in the line of duty on par with military compensation.

j. To order state government to constitute district committees comprising of district head of police , doctor , psychiatrist , behavior specialist and human rights expert , providing a forum for victimized police constables to air their grievances and in turn getting counseling , grievance redress. This will go a long way in controlling 3rd degree torture of innocents by police , lock up deaths also.

FOR WHICH ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER SHALL BE DUTY BOUND, EVER PRAY.

Dated : 29th April 2016 …………………….FILED BY: NAGARAJA.M.R.

Place : Mysuru , India……………………. PETITIONER-IN-PERSON

PIL – Ban Orderly services performed by Police Constables , others

An Appeal to National Human Rights Commission of India and Supreme Court of India

Police Constables , Peons , Dalayaths are ill treated , they are treated as SLAVES / Bonded Labourers by their superior judges , police officers , IAS officers , Ministers , etc. They are forced to do menial jobs (other than official duties ) like clearing night soil from sewage line , washing under wears , clothes of officer & his family members , polishing shoes of officers , their family members , washing clothes , cooking utensils , etc.

If the officer & his family members are suffering from PARALYSIS or any other health problems which makes them unable to perform their own work , then they can appoint private persons by paying from their personal pockets.

2. Question(s) of Law:

Is it right for senior government officials to force ( under threat ) their subordinate officials to do officer’s personal , private work ?

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties , to respect the rights of police constables , dalayaths , peons. To assign proper official duties to police constables , dalayaths & peons.

That the present petitioner has not filed any other petition (which are admitted by courts) in any High Court or the Supreme Court of India on the subject matter of the present petition.

PRAYER:In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the present case , to perform their duties.b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

Law enforcement is a unique profession, with officers experiencing a host of freedoms not available to the general public, including the application of deadly force, high-speed driving, and seizing personal property. While these liberties may be necessary, they also can create opportunities for wrongdoing, especially if such behavior is likely to go undetected because of poor supervision. The embarrassment caused by misconduct can damage the public trust, undermine officer morale, and expose agencies to unnecessary—and, in many cases, costly—litigation.1 Consequently, a clear understanding of the psychology underlying unethical behavior is critical to every law enforcement supervisor and manager at every level of an organization, regardless of one’s agency or mission.

Law enforcement agencies go to great lengths to recruit, hire, and train only the most qualified applicants—candidates who have already demonstrated a track record of good moral values and ethical conduct. Similarly, most officers support the agency, its values, and its mission, performing their duties ethically while avoiding any misconduct or abuse of authority. Yet despite the best efforts of organizations everywhere, it seems that one does not have to look very far these days to find examples of police misconduct, particularly in the popular press.2 Even more disturbing, however, is that many of the officers engaged in immoral or unethical behavior previously demonstrated good service records, absent any of the “evil” typically associated with corruption or abuse.

While it is probably true that at least some of the officers who engage in illicit activities managed somehow to slip through the cracks in the hiring process and simply continued their unethical ways, this account fails to explain how otherwise good officers become involved in misconduct. The purpose of this article is to familiarize law enforcement managers and supervisors with the cognitive rationalizations that can contribute to unethical behavior. The article also offers strategies and suggestions intended to mitigate misconduct, before it actually occurs, by developing a culture of ethics.

Moral Responsibility and Disengagement

Most law enforcement professionals are, at their core, good, ethical, and caring people. Despite the overuse of a popular cliché, many officers do in fact enter law enforcement because they want to make a positive difference in their communities. Officers frequently espouse strong, positive moral values while working diligently—in many cases, at great personal risk—to bring dangerous criminals to justice. Doing so provides officers with a strong sense of personal satisfaction and self-worth. As a result, most officers do not—and in many cases cannot—engage in unethical conduct unless they can somehow justify to themselves the morality of their actions.3

Decades of empirical research have supported the idea that whenever a person’s behaviors are inconsistent with their attitudes or beliefs, the individual will experience a state of psychological tension—a phenomenon referred to as cognitive dissonance. 4 Because this tension is uncomfortable, people will modify any contradictory beliefs or behaviors in ways intended to reduce or eliminate discomfort. Officers can reduce psychological tension by changing one or more of their cognitions—that is, by modifying how they think about their actions and the consequences of those behaviors—or by adjusting their activities, attitudes, or beliefs in ways that are consistent with their values and self-image. Generally speaking, an officer will modify the cognition that is least resistant to change, which, in most cases, tends to be the officer’s attitudes, not behaviors.

One of the simplest ways that officers can reduce the psychological discomfort that accompanies misconduct is to cognitively restructure unethical behaviors in ways that make them seem personally and socially acceptable, thereby allowing officers to behave immorally while preserving their self-image as ethically good people. The following is a partial list of common rationalizations that officers can use to neutralize or excuse unethical conduct:5

Table 1: Rationalizing Misconduct

Strategy

Description

Denial of Victim

Alleging that because there is no legitimate victim, there is no misconduct.

Victim of Circumstance

Behaving improperly because the officer had no other choice, either because of peer pressure or unethical supervision.

Denial of Injury

Because nobody was hurt by the officer’s action, no misconduct actually occurred.

Advantageous Comparisons

Minimizing or excusing one’s own wrongdoing by comparing it to the more egregious behavior of others.

Higher Cause

Breaking the rules because of some higher calling—that is, removing a known felon from the streets.

Blame the Victim

The victim invited any suffering or misconduct by breaking the law in the first place.

Dehumanization

Using euphemistic language to dehumanize people, thereby making them easier to victimize.

Diffusion of Responsibility

Relying on the diffusion of responsibility among the involved parties to excuse misconduct.

Denial of victim. Officers who rely on this tactic argue that because no victim exists, no real harm has been done. It is probably safe to suggest that officers do not generally regard drug dealers, thieves, and sexual predators as bona fide victims, regardless of the nature of an officer’s conduct. An officer, for instance, who takes money from a suspected drug dealer during the service of a search warrant might argue that because the dealer acquired the currency illegally, the dealer was never actually entitled to the proceeds. Rather, the money belongs to whoever possesses it at the time.

Victim of circumstance. Officers who utilize this method convince themselves that they behaved improperly only because they had no other choice. Officers may claim that they were the victims of peer pressure, an unethical supervisor, or an environment where “everyone else is doing it,” so what else could they possibly have done? Regardless of the context, these officers excuse their conduct by alleging that they had no alternative but to act unethically.

Denial of injury. Using this form of rationalization, officers persuade themselves that because nobody was actually hurt by their actions, their behavior was not really immoral. This explanation is especially common in cases involving drugs, stolen property, or large amounts of untraceable cash where it can be difficult, if not impossible, to identify an injured party. Officers who use this tactic may further neutralize their deviant conduct by comparing it to the harm being done by the drug dealer from whom the money was stolen.

Advantageous comparisons. Officers who depend on this explanation rely on selective social comparisons to defend their conduct. Officers who falsify a police report to convict a suspected drug dealer, for example, might defend their actions by minimizing their participation or the frequency of their unethical behavior, while at the same time vilifying a coworker as someone who “lies all the time on reports.” In comparison to an officer who routinely falsifies reports, the first officer’s conduct can seem less egregious.

Higher cause. Officers who practice this type of cognitive restructuring argue that sometimes, it may be necessary to break certain rules to serve a higher calling or to achieve a more important goal. An officer who conducts an unlawful search to uncover evidence against a suspected pedophile might reason that the nature of the crime justifies breaking the rules. “The ends justify the means,” officers might assert—suggesting that they did what was necessary, regardless of the legality or morality of their conduct, to put a dangerous criminal behind bars. This form of rationalization can be especially disturbing because it goes beyond merely excusing or justifying deviant behavior to the point of actually glorifying certain forms of wrongdoing in the name of “justice” or “the greater good.”

Blame the victim. An officer who uses this form of justification blames the victim for any misconduct or abuse. If, for instance, officers use unreasonable force on a suspected drug dealer, they can simply argue that the victim brought on this suffering by violating the law. “If the dealer doesn’t want to get beat up, the dealer should obey the law,” the officer might reason. “I’m not using force on law-abiding citizens, only on drug dealers; they give up their rights when they break the rules.” By assigning blame to the victim, the officer not only finds a way to excuse any wrongdoing, but also a way to feel sanctimonious about doing so.

Dehumanization. The amount of guilt or shame officers feel for behaving unethically depends, at least in part, on how they regard the person being abused. To avoid the feelings of self-censorship or guilt that often accompany misconduct, officers can employ euphemistic language to strip victims of their humanity. Using terms like “dirtbag” to describe law violators has the effect of dehumanizing intended targets, generally making it easier for officers to justify, ignore, or minimize the harmful effects of their actions, while at the same time reducing their personal responsibility for behaving in ways that they know are wrong.

Diffusion of responsibility. An officer who uses this excuse relies on the shared participation—and, by extension, the shared guilt—of everyone involved in an incident of misconduct to excuse or reduce any personal culpability. With each additional accomplice, every individual officer is seen as that much less responsible for any wrongdoing that might have occurred. If, for instance, money is stolen from an arrestee, officers might assert that there were many officers at the crime scene who could have done this, so an individual cannot be blamed. Similarly, if ten officers were involved in the service of a search warrant, then each officer is only one-tenth responsible for any misconduct that occurs.

Misconduct’s Slippery Slope

It is important to note that most officers do not jump headfirst into large-scale misconduct—instead, they weigh in gradually in a process referred to as incrementalism.6 The strength and ease with which officers can rationalize unethical behavior also depends, at least in part, on how they view their conduct, the people harmed by their actions, and the consequences that flow from their actions. An officer’s initial slide down the slippery slope of misconduct can begin with nothing more than simple policy violations that, if left unchecked, generate a mild feeling of psychological tension or discomfort. However, by learning to rationalize wrongdoing in ways that make it psychologically and morally acceptable, officers are able to relieve any feelings of distress or discomfort, effectively disengaging their moral compasses.

Officers can employ cognitive rationalizations prospectively (before the corrupt act) to forestall guilt and resistance, or retrospectively (after the misconduct) to erase any regrets. In either case, the more frequently an officer rationalizes deviant behavior, the easier each subsequent instance of misconduct becomes.7This is because the more frequently officers employ rationalizations, the easier it becomes to activate similar thought patterns in the future. With time and repeated experience, rationalizations can eventually become part of the habitual, automatic, effortless ways that officers think about themselves, their duties, and the consequences of their actions, eventually allowing officers to engage in increasingly egregious acts of misconduct with little, if any, of the guilt or shame commonly associated with wrongdoing.

As officers learn to pay less attention to the morality of their actions, the ways they think about misconduct—that is, their attitudes, beliefs, and values—may begin to change as well. Officers can begin defining behaviors that were once seen as unethical or immoral as necessary parts of completing their assigned duties. Even more troubling, however, is that once rationalizations become part of an agency’s dominant culture, they can alter the ways officers define misconduct, particularly if wrongdoings are rewarded either informally by an officer’s peer group or formally by the organization.

Ethics Education

Law enforcement agencies throughout the United States, as well as abroad, have begun to recognize the importance of ethics training. While such attention represents a significant step in the right direction, ethical instruction is often limited to little more than the discussion and development of proper moral values—an approach commonly referred to as character education.8 Proponents of this method suggest that officers who possess the right values—and, by extension, the right character—will always do the right thing, regardless of the circumstances. Although few people would argue with the importance of good moral values and character, ethical decisions are not always simple.

Before officers can act ethically, they must recognize the moral nature of a situation; decide on a specific and, hopefully, ethical course of action; possess the requisite moral motivation to take action; and demonstrate the character necessary to follow through with his decision.9 To further complicate matters, even the best of intentions can be thwarted by peer pressure or fear of retaliation. For example, the 2003 National Business Ethics Survey found that approximately 40 percent of those surveyed would not report misconduct if they observed it because of fear of reprisal from management.10

This cloud does, however, contain a silver lining. Research has demonstrated that ethics education can assist officers in better navigating moral challenges by increasing ethical awareness and moral reasoning—two critical aspects of ethical decision making.11 However, conducting meaningful ethics education requires more than lengthy philosophical lectures on the importance of character. Rather, instructors should focus on facilitating a dialogue that challenges officers on key moral issues and assumptions; tests their reasoning and decision-making skills; and allows them to share their experiences in a safe, supportive environment.12

For ethics education to be truly effective, organizations must make moral discussions a regular part of the agency’s training program. In the same way that officers routinely train in defensive tactics, firearms, and law to better prime them for field duties, officers should prepare equally well for any ethical issues they might encounter.13 Supervisors can stimulate ethical discussions with a video documentary, news clip, or fictional story. Regardless of the stimulus, however, the more frequently officers discuss ethics, the better able they will be to recognize a moral dilemma, make the appropriate ethical decision, and demonstrate the moral courage necessary to behave honorably.

Next, law enforcement agencies must establish a clear code of ethical conduct, including a set of core values and mission statement. Merely establishing a code of ethical conduct is not enough, however; the department’s top management must lead by example. It is important to remember that a code of conduct applies equally to employees at all levels of an organization.14 As most leaders can confirm from experience, officers can be surprisingly quick to point out any inconsistencies between the organization’s stated values and the conduct of senior management. If leaders expect officers to behave ethically, leaders must model the way.

Departments must also work to create systems that reward ethical conduct and punish unethical behavior.15 Core values and codes of conduct are of little value if they are not supported by wider agency objectives that reward ethical actions. Not only should law enforcement organizations reward officers for behaving ethically, they must also seriously address officers’ ethical concerns by thoroughly investigating any allegations, while protecting the confidentiality of those reporting such incidents. And, finally, agencies should strive to create an open environment where ethical issues can be discussed without fear of punishment or reprisal.

In the end, mitigating and, hopefully, eliminating misconduct require regular ethics training, high ethical standards, appropriate reward systems, and a culture in which ethical issues are discussed freely. While the responsibility for creating a culture of ethics rests with leadership, individual officers must do their part to behave ethically, support the moral conduct of others, and challenge misconduct in all its forms. Only by remaining vigilant to the psychology of misconduct can law enforcement professionals focus attention back on the positive aspects of their profession, while enjoying the high levels of public trust necessary to do their jobs. ■

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTUREand Other Cruel, Inhuman or DegradingTreatment or Punishment

Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Recognizing that those rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person,

Considering the obligation of States under the Charter, in particular Article 55, to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Having regard to article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment,

Having regard also to the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the General Assembly on 9 December 1975 (resolution 3452 (XXX)),

Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world,

Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.

Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committee in any territory under its jurisdiction.

Each State Party shall ensure that any individual who alleges he has been subjected to torture in any territory under its jurisdiction has the right to complain to and to have his case promptly and impartially examined its competent authorities. Steps shall be taken to ensure that the complainant and witnesses are protected against all ill-treatment or intimidation as a consequence of his complaint or any evidence given.

Each State Party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

The members of the Committee, and of the ad hoc conciliation commissions which may be appointed under article 21, paragraph 1 (e), shall be entitled to the facilities, privileges and immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations as laid down in the relevant sections of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations.

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 12 to ARTICLE 35 & ARTICLE 51A OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS UNDER ARTICLE 32 & ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

To ,1. Hon'ble The Chief Justice of India and His Lordship's Companion Justices of the Supreme Court of India.

2. Hon’ble Chairman , National Human Rights Commission of India

The Humble petition of the Petitioner above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH :

1. Facts of the case:"Power will go to the hands of rascals, , rogues and freebooters. All Indian leaders will be of low calibre and men of straw. They will have sweet tongues and silly hearts. They will fight among themselves forpower and will be lost in political squabbles . A day would come when even air & water will be taxed." Sir Winston made this statement in the House of Commons just before the independence of India & Pakistan. Sadly , the forewarning of Late Winston Churchill has been proved right by some of our criminal , corrupt public servants , corrupt judges , corrupt police & corrupt doctors.

2. some unfit people based on their connections , money power , etc everything else other than MERIT , HONESTY , INTEGRITY have become Judges , Police & Doctors. These unfit people have used criminal means for their selection and indulge in crimes by selling their official duties for a price. Recent example : Delhi Judge Selection Examination , KPSC & VYAPAM scams.

4. Honest few in judiciary , police , health services & public services are just mute spectators , they are not raising their voice , not legally prosecuting their corrupt colleagues. It also amounts to corroboration & a crime.

5 . Due to these type of match fixing by Judges & police many innocents are serving jail sentence behind bars & some have been hanged , while the rich crooks are roaming free.

Is it not the duty of doctor to heal the pain of a human being rather than give pain to a human being ? is a doctor legally authorized to torture or aid torture of a human being ?

Is it not the duty of police to uphold our law , protect public , common man rather than illegally fixing them in cases ? are police legally authorized to subject a human being to torture ? Are not police responsible for life , health & safety of persons under their custody ?

Is it not the duty of a judge to uphold law , protect public ? is it not his duty to check the veracity of claims , reports by police , doctors giving fake evidences , reports ? is it not duty of a judge to protect life , health & safety of persons under judicial custody or serving prison sentence based on judicial orders ?

3. Grounds:

All Indian citizens are guaranteed with fundamental rights of life , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice under constitution of india.

All Indian citizens are guaranteed with human rights of life , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice under constitution of india as india is also a signatory of UN Human Rights Charter.

All Human Beings are guaranteed with human rights of life , liberty , health , safety , equitable justice by virtue of their birth itself irrespective of any constitutional bodies or statutory bodies.

Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

PRAYER:In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased:

a . Hereby , I do request the honorable supreme court of India to consider this as a PIL for : “writ of Mandamus” and to issue instructions to the concerned public servants in the following cases to perform their duties & to answer the questions.

b . to pass such other orders and further orders as may be deemed necessary on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

c. to constitute impartial statutory investigation committee comprising NGOs , press , police & judiciary at taluk levels to investigate cases of 3rd degree torture by law enforcement agencies . Essentially these committees must include a member from victim’s side during investigation & prosecution. The state government must bear the cost of it’s functioning including transportation , food , remuneration at actual rate.

d. In the cases of 3rd degree torture , fake encounters , there must be provision for 2nd , 3rd medical examination , medical opinion by doctors appointed by investigation committee.

e. when government doctors are caught giving false post mortem reports , false medical opinions they must be dismissed from service and legally prosecuted for abetting torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.

f. when police , jail staff or law enforcing personnel are caught for physically & mentally torturing a human being , an under trial or convict they must be dismissed from service and legally prosecuted for abetting torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.

g. when a judge is caught for giving biased judicial order without examining the veracity of evidences , statements , reports given by police , law enforcement personnel , doctors , when a judge bases his judicial orders on forced confessions taken from under trials , convicts by 3rd degree torture methods , those judges must be dismissed from service and legally prosecuted for abetting torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.

h. when a judge fails to protect life , health , safety of a prisoner , whether under trial or convict , those judges must be dismissed from service and legally prosecuted for abetting torture , attempt to murder or murder as the case may be.